Comment on Mann vs Steyn et al. discussion thread by Joshua

August 15, 2014, 4:41 am

≫ Next: Comment on Mann vs Steyn et al. discussion thread by aaron

≪ Previous: Comment on Mann vs Steyn et al. discussion thread by Joshua

$

0

0

yes – it is rather conspiratorial. To believe it to be true, you have accept that there is a rather implausible simplicity to what is likely a very complicated process (the causality of why “the notion that climate scientists are part of an evil cabal seeking to take away your freedom in support of creating a socialist world government.”) is so widespread..

Claims like that are one of the beautiful ironies of the climate wars. Conspiratorial thinking on one side offered as an explanation for conspiratorial thinking on the other side. And both sides complain about the conspiratorial ideology on the other side w/o owning up their own.

And all along, there is some pretty strong evidence that explains why such conspiratorial thinking is so pervasive in the climate wars:

Remind me, Have I ever mentioned the identity-aggressive and identity-defensive behaviors that are associated with motivated reasoning? I can’t remember if I have.

---

Comment on Mann vs Steyn et al. discussion thread by aaron

August 15, 2014, 4:45 am

≫ Next: Comment on Mann vs Steyn et al. discussion thread by aaron

≪ Previous: Comment on Mann vs Steyn et al. discussion thread by Joshua

$

0

0

Why Paul Krugman writes for the NYT: 4) Financial/Political interest of friends 3)Spending money 2)He loves his wife 1)Laugh at his readers.

Comment on Mann vs Steyn et al. discussion thread by aaron

August 15, 2014, 5:10 am

≫ Next: Comment on Mann vs Steyn et al. discussion thread by John

≪ Previous: Comment on Mann vs Steyn et al. discussion thread by aaron

$

0

0

I don’t think it’s just about free speech, it’s also about demonstrating and publicizing that Mann’s work and claims are invalid.

Comment on Mann vs Steyn et al. discussion thread by John

August 15, 2014, 5:11 am

≫ Next: Comment on Mann vs Steyn et al. discussion thread by rhhardin

≪ Previous: Comment on Mann vs Steyn et al. discussion thread by aaron

$

0

0

Jane, don’t forget to pull Judith’s ponytails ok? Who knows, she might react some day.

Comment on Mann vs Steyn et al. discussion thread by rhhardin

August 15, 2014, 5:15 am

≫ Next: Comment on Mann vs Steyn et al. discussion thread by aaron

≪ Previous: Comment on Mann vs Steyn et al. discussion thread by John

$

0

0

“The link between ‘defending Michael Mann is defending climate science’ seems to have been broken.”

Abandoning a sinking ship.

Mann made climate science, though. Bits of stuff can be thrown together and assembled into a conclusion, leading to very attractive money. That was his invention.

The public won’t go along anymore now.

The bits of stuff are enough to cling to, and used to be enough to interest science. Just don’t reassemble the bits into a grand picture that they don’t in fact support.

Comment on Mann vs Steyn et al. discussion thread by aaron

August 15, 2014, 5:18 am

≫ Next: Comment on Mann vs Steyn et al. discussion thread by aaron

≪ Previous: Comment on Mann vs Steyn et al. discussion thread by rhhardin

$

0

0

IIRC, the Climate Legal Defense Fund which finances Mann is a front/tax shelter for wealthy activists.

Comment on Mann vs Steyn et al. discussion thread by aaron

August 15, 2014, 5:25 am

≫ Next: Comment on Appeals to the climate consensus can give the wrong impression by JamesG

≪ Previous: Comment on Mann vs Steyn et al. discussion thread by aaron

$

0

0

Not really. Steyn has a right to be offensive.

His comment is a very apt analogy; Mann is man who brings in lots of money for universities through donation and expertise in the grant process (and politics of) and who has been protected from proper scrutiny. And one of the universities happens to be Penn State.

Steyn would be negligent in not making that analogy.

Comment on Appeals to the climate consensus can give the wrong impression by JamesG

August 15, 2014, 5:26 am

≫ Next: Comment on Mann vs Steyn et al. discussion thread by Mark Silbert

≪ Previous: Comment on Mann vs Steyn et al. discussion thread by aaron

$

0

0

And here I thought the consensus was represented by the IPCC who stated that stratospheric cooling was a fingerprint – along with the hotspot – of global warming. I guess like all the other fingerprints, when it doesn’t happen you just move the goalposts. The effect of ozone versus anything else is mere guesswork anyway.

---

Comment on Mann vs Steyn et al. discussion thread by Mark Silbert

August 15, 2014, 5:27 am

≫ Next: Comment on Mann vs Steyn et al. discussion thread by IPMeng

≪ Previous: Comment on Appeals to the climate consensus can give the wrong impression by JamesG

$

0

0

It’s interesting that Krugman identifies so strongly with Mann. Two ivory tower elitists who think they can issue their proclamations to the commoners with no accountability except an occasional University coverup “investigation” designed to obfuscate. Krugman is so wrong about all of this but he slithers under the cover of the NYTimes OPED pages.

Comment on Mann vs Steyn et al. discussion thread by IPMeng

August 15, 2014, 5:27 am

≫ Next: Comment on Mann vs Steyn et al. discussion thread by GaryB

≪ Previous: Comment on Mann vs Steyn et al. discussion thread by Mark Silbert

$

0

0

I am reluctant to comment fearing a possible lawsuit if my view offends.

Comment on Mann vs Steyn et al. discussion thread by GaryB

August 15, 2014, 5:28 am

≫ Next: Comment on Mann vs Steyn et al. discussion thread by Agricultural Economist

≪ Previous: Comment on Mann vs Steyn et al. discussion thread by IPMeng

$

0

0

Actually, it’s do you have protection and more specifically, recourse for recovering damages, from being materially harmed.

Comment on Mann vs Steyn et al. discussion thread by Agricultural Economist

August 15, 2014, 5:39 am

≫ Next: Comment on Mann vs Steyn et al. discussion thread by Daniel

≪ Previous: Comment on Mann vs Steyn et al. discussion thread by GaryB

$

0

0

I find Mann’s general behaviour towards people who disagree with him just disgusting. Maybe Twitter has a corrupting influence, but in his case this is much more.

BUT STILL: equating his scientific practices with the behaviour of a child molester deserves punishment. This is just beyond the limit of decent behaviour, and should not be protected by free spech, regardless of how famous the targeted person is (or – usually – believes to be).

Just my German gut feeling.

Comment on Mann vs Steyn et al. discussion thread by Daniel

August 15, 2014, 5:49 am

≫ Next: Comment on Mann vs Steyn et al. discussion thread by Daniel

≪ Previous: Comment on Mann vs Steyn et al. discussion thread by Agricultural Economist

$

0

0

Faustino
Krugman was never a good economist much less a ‘very good’ economist.
But but but, you say, he won a Noble prize.
Yes, a Left Wing organization gives a prize to a Left Wing economist whose work substantially gives cover to larger and larger government. What a surprise!
Is there anything to him that isn’t ideologically driven? Is there anything he won’t say in the service of his particular ideology?
Read his NYT columns as a body of work. Deplorable. But then you can accuse me of not being a Left Wing Progressive looking for reasons under every rock to justify an expansive State. You might ask, ‘Well, what’s wrong with justifying an expansive state?’ For Krugman the problem is a long and rich history showing exactly what is wrong with it to which his solution is to make things up, to twist facts into a mold, to leave relevant things out of an argument, etc. Much what a propagandist would do. Krugman is to economics what Mann is to climate science.

Comment on Mann vs Steyn et al. discussion thread by Daniel

August 15, 2014, 5:51 am

≫ Next: Comment on Mann vs Steyn et al. discussion thread by Daniel

≪ Previous: Comment on Mann vs Steyn et al. discussion thread by Daniel

$

0

0

Michael
That you feel is sitting right there, on your own shoulder.

Comment on Mann vs Steyn et al. discussion thread by Daniel

August 15, 2014, 5:51 am

≫ Next: Comment on Mann vs Steyn et al. discussion thread by Daniel

≪ Previous: Comment on Mann vs Steyn et al. discussion thread by Daniel

$

0

0

‘chip’

---

Comment on Mann vs Steyn et al. discussion thread by Daniel

August 15, 2014, 5:54 am

≫ Next: Comment on Mann vs Steyn et al. discussion thread by Daniel

≪ Previous: Comment on Mann vs Steyn et al. discussion thread by Daniel

$

0

0

Josuha
Where is the name calling in this?

“This lawsuit seems motivated by one person’s fragile ego that has been bruised as he’s tried to defend questionable science.” – JC

One could even read that as an expression of sympathy.

Comment on Mann vs Steyn et al. discussion thread by Daniel

August 15, 2014, 5:56 am

≫ Next: Comment on Mann vs Steyn et al. discussion thread by aaron

≪ Previous: Comment on Mann vs Steyn et al. discussion thread by Daniel

$

0

0

Keitho
Why use messy and protracted litigation when you have the IRS?

Comment on Mann vs Steyn et al. discussion thread by aaron

August 15, 2014, 5:59 am

≫ Next: Comment on Mann vs Steyn et al. discussion thread by Keitho

≪ Previous: Comment on Mann vs Steyn et al. discussion thread by Daniel

$

0

0

It’s amusing how his commentary and the work he is famous for are so dissonant. Yet his astounding rhetorical gymnastic talent make it seem not so. And his reader leap from vague implications to absurd conclusions and self affirmation.

Comment on Mann vs Steyn et al. discussion thread by Keitho

August 15, 2014, 6:02 am

≫ Next: Comment on Mann vs Steyn et al. discussion thread by Daniel

≪ Previous: Comment on Mann vs Steyn et al. discussion thread by aaron

$

0

0

You make an excellent point mon ami.

Comment on Mann vs Steyn et al. discussion thread by Daniel

August 15, 2014, 6:04 am

≫ Next: Comment on Mann vs Steyn et al. discussion thread by timg56

≪ Previous: Comment on Mann vs Steyn et al. discussion thread by Keitho

$

0

0

Agricultural Economist

BUT STILL: equating his scientific practices with the behaviour of a child molester deserves punishment. This is just beyond the limit of decent behaviour, and should not be protected by free spech, regardless of how famous the targeted person is (or – usually – believes to be).

Can you back that up by citing evidence?